A4-3305M vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000

A4-3305M vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000 Performance Spectrum

A4-3305M

2 / 2

1,812

+0.8%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron Dual-Core T3000

2 / 2

1,797

0.0%

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

A4-3305M vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

A4-3305M vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

A4-3305M

2011

Why buy it

✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6480G, while Celeron Dual-Core T3000 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌3400% higher power demand at 35W vs 1W.

Celeron Dual-Core T3000

2009

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 35W, a 34W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,797 vs 1,812).
❌Launch MSRP is still $80 MSRP, while A4-3305M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while A4-3305M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is A4-3305M better than Celeron Dual-Core T3000?

Yes. A4-3305M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.8% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A4-3305M is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.3% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A4-3305M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

A4-3305M is still the much better call for a fresh build. A4-3305M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $80 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron Dual-Core T3000 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2009 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (22.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on P.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

A4-3305M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2009) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A4-3305M vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

A4-3305M

The A4-3305M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FS1. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,812 points. Launch price was $50.

Celeron Dual-Core T3000

The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Penryn-1M (2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: P. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,797 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-3305M and Celeron Dual-Core T3000 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the A4-3305M versus 1.8 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 — a 32.6% clock advantage for the A4-3305M. The A4-3305M uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 uses Penryn-1M (2009) (45 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3305M scores 1,812 against the Celeron Dual-Core T3000's 1,797 — a 0.8% lead for the A4-3305M.

Feature	A4-3305M	Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz+39%	1.8 GHz
Base Clock	1.9 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+51100%	1 MB
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Penryn-1M (2009)
PassMark	1,812	1,797
Geekbench 6 Single	276	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3305M uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 uses P (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the A4-3305M versus DDR3-800 on the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 — the A4-3305M supports 66.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A4-3305M supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes.

Feature	A4-3305M	Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Socket	FS1	P
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+67%	DDR3-800
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-3305M) vs false (Celeron Dual-Core T3000). The A4-3305M includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6480G), while the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3305M targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: A4-3305M rivals Pentium B950.